K2retire

Check the base plan document. Some of them specify that all members of the plan sponsor's controlled group are automatically included.

If it is a profit sharing plan with no contributions in at least 3 of the last 5 years the IRS is likely to consider the plan terminated.

It sounds like everyone agrees that it is a casualty loss, the issue is whether or not it is part of the principal residence. Assume for a moment that the homeowner were to list the property for sale. Would it even be possible to sell the house without selling the pool? In that context it seems to be pretty clear that the pool is part of the residence.

I know little or nothing about 409A plans, so I apologize if my question is too basic. We have been asked by a plan sponsor if a terminated employee's income from their 409A plan can be included in compensation for their 401(k) plan. The payments are only available after termination of employment and will continue for 5 years. The 401(k) plan's definition of compensation is W-2 wages, which would include distributions from a non qualified plan. But the payments only being available after termination of employment makes me think they can't be included in 415 compensation. And with no 415 comp, there could be no deferrals. What is the rule on this?

If the safe harbor contribution is a match, there are usually several non-key employees who don't get a match. This would be a similar situation.

Could this be why attorneys often draft documents with the name of the plan including the phrase "Plan and Trust"?

Most of the SPDs I've seen mention that loans are available and refer the reader to a separate loan policy.

If not, what difference does it make?

I agree that it's stupid -- but it is also common. If the new record keeper has not yet received the participant data from the old record keeper they will often refuse to accept a deposit.

Was the participant paid between 7-1 and 7-15?

Your analysis of the interest savings is correct. Whether or not it grows your 401(k) will depend on whether your other investments in the plan would have earned more or less than 4.5% during that period. There is also a risk that the loan could be defaulted and become taxable if you change jobs.

Yes, but that doesn't solve the issue of people having received different match percentages.

The absence of the mandated information was noted on the form before the first audit. So presumably that is OK. I have no idea why the attorney thinks an amendment is necessary -- that's why I'm hoping to get some feedback about it NOT being necessary.

At the time that we prepared the 5500 for a client, their record keeper did not provide the necessary information as to their own compensation to report on Schedule C. We indicated the information about the record keeper and that the information had not be provided. Of course, this prompted a DOL inquiry. This has made the record keeper much more interested in cooperating. The client's attorney is suggesting that once the record keeper provides the information, we should file an amended 5500. I have two questions about that. Is it really necessary? What was filed was accurate at the time of the filing. Would the client need a new audit?

Why not amend the plan to make it 3 consecutive months?

This is easily solved by completing a deferral election with a dollar amount per pay period, rather than a percentage.

The auto enrollment feature was implemented while the rehired employee was not an employee. And they often rehire summer interns who met eligibility, but didn't pass a plan entry date before terminating.

Plan has auto enrollment. Rehired employees become participants on the date of rehire. Must the auto enrollment start with the first paycheck, or must the employee be given a window to opt out before it begins? The record keeper says that 30 days notice is mandatory and they will issue the notice 7-10 days after the first payroll that includes the rehired employee. That means the auto enrollment would actually not begin for about 60 days, unless the employer handles it manually rather than through their usual automated process.

Keep in mind that a property settlement is intended to divide all of the marital assets -- not just the retirement accounts. Sometimes the retirement accounts are split unevenly to offset other assets that are transferred to one party or the other.

This sounds like the safer route. Plus you would have 60 month to repay the loan rather than 60 days.

How does that work with the anti-alienation rules?

The definition of non-resident alien for income tax purposes is different from the definition for plan purposes. Kevin C has provided the detail that many plan sponsors overlook -- "who receive no earned income from the employer which constitutes income from sources within the United States."

A couple of thoughts about Great-West. The Schedule C section of their annual plan summary was initially incorrect for most of our plans and they had to generate new ones. If the plan is on their PNP site (for non-profits), rather than on Partnerlink, they do not generate a Schedule C report.

Will the prior recordkeeper not accept it either?

I agree that they need to receive the QNEC and match.